OSHA Compliance: A Safety Professional’s Guide to OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy

OSHA compliance can be especially challenging on complex worksites where multiple employers operate side by side. Few OSHA policies generate more confusion or debate than the Multi-Employer Citation Policy. This policy allows OSHA to cite more than one employer for the same hazardous condition when an OSHA standard is violated.

The policy is central to federal enforcement on multi-employer worksites. It applies when hazards are created, exposed, corrected, or controlled by different parties. In practice, the policy is most visible in construction. General contractors regularly coordinate multiple trades and subcontractors, which places shared responsibility on their shoulders (National Association  of Home Builders, 2022).

For safety professionals, understanding how this policy works is critical. It directly affects inspections, enforcement decisions, and long-term OSHA compliance strategies.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Although OSHA formally clarified the policy in 1999, its origins date back decades. Early court decisions recognized that more than one employer could bear responsibility for a hazard.

In Brennan v. OSHRC & Underhill Construction Corp. (1975), the court acknowledged shared duties on multi-employer worksites. That same year, Anning-Johnson Co. v. OSHRC reinforced the idea that liability could extend beyond the employer that created the hazard.

In 1976, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission expanded on these principles. The Grossman Steel & Aluminum Corp. decision clarified that exposure alone could create responsibility. This applied even if the employer did not create the hazard.

OSHA later codified these ideas through Directive CPL 02-00-124 in 1999. This directive established the modern framework used today. It introduced a two-step analysis that identifies employer roles and evaluates the adequacy of prevention measures.

These developments shaped how OSHA evaluates OSHA compliance at multi-employer worksites today.

Structure of the Policy: The Four Employer Roles

Under CPL 02-00-124, OSHA identifies four employer roles. Any of these roles may result in a citation, depending on the facts.

• Creating Employer: This employer causes a hazardous condition that violates an OSHA standard. It can be cited even if only another employer’s workers are exposed.

• Exposing Employer: This employer’s own workers are exposed to the hazard. Even without creating the hazard, it must take reasonable steps to protect its employees.

• Correcting Employer: This employer is responsible for fixing the hazard. Examples include maintaining guardrails or correcting electrical issues. Reasonable care is required during abatement.

• Controlling Employer: This party has general supervisory authority over the site. Often, this is the general contractor. The controlling employer must exercise reasonable care to detect and prevent violations.

Each role carries specific OSHA compliance obligations. Failure to meet them can result in enforcement action.

OSHA Compliance and Reasonableness for Controlling Employers

For controlling employers, OSHA does not expect constant oversight of every task. Instead, OSHA focuses on reasonable care.

Reasonable care includes periodic inspections, effective correction systems, and enforcement when violations occur. The level of effort depends on several factors. These include project size, hazard severity, and subcontractor safety history.

In construction, this duty aligns with existing regulatory requirements. For example, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(2) requires frequent and regular inspections by a competent person.

When evaluating OSHA compliance, inspectors often assess whether these expectations are met in practice.

Practical Elements of OSHA Compliance for General Contractors

• Site Safety Program & Rules communicated in contracts and kickoff meetings, aligned with OSHA standards.

• Inspection Regimen scaled to the job’s risk profile and subcontractors’ safety history.

• Training & Orientation expectations for subs and a documented enforcement scheme for noncompliance.

• Documentation of hazards, abatement, and follow up to demonstrate diligence.

Together, these elements form the backbone of defensible OSHA compliance on multi-employer worksites.

Indemnification Clauses and OSHA Compliance Limitations

Contractual indemnification clauses often shift financial risk between parties. However, they do not limit OSHA’s enforcement authority.

Under 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2), employers have a non-delegable duty to comply with OSHA standards. As a result, contractual language cannot eliminate citation exposure.

Federal courts have consistently upheld this principle. In Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc. (2009), the Eighth Circuit confirmed OSHA’s authority to cite controlling employers. This applied even when their own employees were not exposed.

Similarly, Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. (2018) reaffirmed this authority in the Fifth Circuit. These decisions underscore an important point. Indemnification does not replace OSHA compliance.

Case Studies: How the Policy Is Applied

Case Study #1: Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc.

In this case, OSHA cited a controlling employer for fall hazards on a construction site. The hazards were governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501.

The court ultimately upheld OSHA’s authority to issue the citation. This ruling reinstated multi-employer liability within the Eighth Circuit. It also reinforced the reach of the Multi-Employer Citation Policy.

Case Study #2: Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

This case involved excavation hazards. The Fifth Circuit overturned earlier dicta and aligned with other circuits.

The court confirmed that OSHA may cite controlling employers at multi-tier worksites. This decision significantly expanded OSHA compliance expectations in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Potential Defenses to Multi-Employer Citations

Employers facing multi-employer citations may raise several defenses. Success depends heavily on evidence.

1. Lack of Knowledge or Control

OSHA must show actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. Employers may contest citations by proving reasonable diligence.

2. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct

This defense requires strong proof. Employers must show rules existed, were communicated, monitored, and enforced.

3. No Employee Exposure

If no employees were exposed to the hazard, the citation may fail. Exposure remains a key enforcement element.

4. Reasonable Prevention Measures

Demonstrating a risk-based inspection and enforcement program can help rebut allegations. Consistency with CPL 02-00-124 is critical.

Conclusion

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy extends accountability across complex worksites. Employers who create, expose, correct, or control hazards may all face citations.

For controlling employers, OSHA compliance depends on reasonable care. This includes risk-based inspections, timely abatement, and consistent enforcement. Documentation plays a central role in demonstrating diligence.

Recent court decisions confirm that contractual risk transfer does not limit OSHA’s authority. When disputes arise, fact-intensive defenses may succeed. However, proactive and well-documented OSHA compliance remains the most effective strategy for both legal protection and safer jobsites.

About the Author

James A. Junkin, MS, CSP, MSP, SMS, ASP, CSHO is the chief executive officer of Mariner-Gulf Consulting & Services, LLC and the chair of the Veriforce Strategic Advisory Board and the past chair of Professional Safety journal’s editorial review board. James is a member of the Advisory Board for the National Association of Safety Professionals (NASP). He is Columbia Southern University’s 2022 Safety Professional of the Year (Runner Up), a 2023 recipient of the National Association of Environmental Management’s (NAEM) 30 over 30 Award for excellence in the practice of occupational safety and health and sustainability, and the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) 2024 Safety Professional of the Year for Training and Communications, and the recipient of the ASSP 2023-2024 Charles V. Culberson award. He is a much sought after master trainer, keynote speaker, podcaster of The Risk Matrix, and author of numerous articles concerning occupational safety and health.

References

Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co., 909 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 2018). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/17-60543/17-60543-2018-11-26.html

Anning Johnson Co. v. U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, 516 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1975). https://openjurist.org/516/f2d/1081/anning-johnson-company-v-united-states-occupational-safety-and-health-review-commission

Beveridge & Diamond. (2018, December 18). Fifth Circuit upholds OSHA’s Multi Employer Citation Policy. https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/fifth-circuit-upholds-oshas-multi-employer-citation-policy/

Hinckley Allen. (2023, May 31). OSHA: The “Unpreventable Employee Misconduct” defense. https://www.hinckleyallen.com/publications/osha-the-unpreventable-employee-misconduct-defense/

Kettlekamp, B. & Junkin, J.A. (2025, September). Limits of standard indemnity in contractor injury cases. Professional Safety, 70(9), 20-21. https://www.assp.org/docs/default-source/psj-articles/cp_0925.pdf?sfvrsn=1efe4846_0

National Association of Home Builders. (2022). Residential Construction Performance Guidelines, Contractor Reference (6th ed.). National Association of Home Builders.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 – General safety and health provisions. https://www.osha.gov/laws-egs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.20

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.a). Field Operations Manual (FOM). https://www.osha.gov/fom

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1999, December 10). Multi Employer Citation Policy (Directive CPL 0200124). https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-124

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). (n.d.). Summit Contractors, Inc., Dkt. No. 050839 (decision). https://www.oshrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/05-0839.htm

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). (2019, Feb. 20). Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Dkt. No. 151638 (decision on remand). https://www.oshrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/HenselPhelpsDecision2_15-1638.html

Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009). https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/02/072191P.pdf

U.S. Code. 29 U.S.C. § 654. Duties of employers and employees. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/654